The Mdking of d Liberdl Leader:

DOUGLAS HALE*

N 1858, while on pilgrimage to Frederician battlefields, Thomas Carlyle chanced one day upon an obscure German hamlet called “Gagern.” Here, noted the historian laconically, was the “cradle of a Gagern known in the late revolutionary

time, ‘President,’ or something he was, now gone out of sight.”’ Carlyle’s uncertain recollection and indifference to the fate of this man who had been hailed as the “hope of Germany” and “the apostle of a new age”2 a short decade before is but typical of the neglect which Gagern has suffered at the hands of subse- quent generations.

Heinrich von Gagern had served as president of the Frankfurt National Assembly of 1848 and was regarded as the most popular man in Germany during that momentous year. As leader of the moderate majority and outstanding personality in the Assembly, he played a paramount role in formulating and implementing the decisions of that body. But while Gagern epitomized more than any other the liberal nationalism which inspired the Frank- furt Assembly, he fell heir to a major share of the discredit redounding from its failure. The same men who hailed him in 1848 as “the best man that Germany has” turned away in dis- appointment when the aspirations he embodied proved unattain- able.3 The realistic Bismarck dismissed Gagern as “a mere watering-can of fine phrases.”* In Treitschke’s devastating judg- ment, Gagern was “a man resembling Czar Nicholas [q in the

The author is .4ssociate Professor of History at Oklahoma State University. ‘Thornas Carlyle. Journey to Gcrmnny, Autumn 1858, ed. by Richard A. E

Brooks (Sew Haven, 1440), 21. 2 Karl Biedermann, Erinnerungen aus der Pnulskirche (Leipzig, 1849). 295:

Bockelberg to Canitz, Darmmdt, June 3 , 1817, Joseph Hanwn. ed., Rheinische Bricfe und Aktcn zur Gcschichte dcr politkcheti ncwegung 1830-1850 (Essen, 1919 and Bonn, INZ), XI. 268.

‘Wolfgang Hock. Liberales Denken i m Zeitaltrr der PnuOkitrlir (Xliinster, 1957),

4 Moritz Busch, Bismarck: Some Secret Pages of His History (2 vols.; New York, l89S), I , 235. See also Otto \on Bismarck, Gedanken und Erinnerungen (New k’ork and Stuttqart, 1R98), 62.

I

81-86.

34

Heinrich von Gagern capacity for deceiving contemporaries as to the mediocrity of his gifts through his possession of the outward characteristics of a great man.” Succeeding generations largely ignored him. Only in recent years, with the publication of a portion of the Gagern papers, have historians begun to pay serious attention to this man who personified the moderate liberal-national persuasion of 1848.

It is well that this revival of interest has taken place, because the career of Gagern offers a singularly advantageous approach toward an understanding of developments in Germany between the fall of Napoleon and the Revolution of 1848. T o a remarkable degree, Heinrich von Gagern embodied in his own persona!ity the central tenets of liberal nationalism. For a large part of his life he stood near the center of events, and no one can fully comprehend the German War of Liberation, the German student movements, the development of political parties, the emergence of south German constitutionalism, or the Revolution of 1848 without some reference to Gagern. As one author has recently put it, Gagern appears as the “incarnation, perhaps also the product . . . of modern liberalis~n.”~ The purpose of this study, therefore, is to trace the forces and influences which simultaneously shaped Gagern’s career and the destiny of Germany between 1815 and 1848.

Heinrich von Gagern, like the Germany in which he grew up and came to prominence, was influenced profoundly by those tenets of the Enlightenment which had been disseminated in the century prior to his birth. Moreover, his whole personality and outlook bore the stamp of an aristocratic heritage. His Eather, Baron Hans Christoph von Gagern (1766-1852), belonged to that generation which bridged the ages of rationalism and romanticism. As an imperial knight, Hans was imbued with a traditional fealty to the old Empire which transcended the narrow dynastic and regional loyalties of eighteenth-century Germany. Though reared in an atmosphere of cosinopolitan rationalism, the elder Gagern was so affected by Herder’s doctrines of nationality that,

BHeinrich von Treitschke, History of Germany in flze 19th Century, trans. by Eden and Cedar Paul (7 vols.; New York, 1915-1919), V, 376.

‘The most important work in this respect has been that of the Izte Paul Wentzcke, who as early as 1910 began his detailed study of Gagern‘s career. See especially his Anfa‘nge und Aufstieg Neinrichs von Gngern (1799-1836), Entscheidende Jahre des VormErz: Heinrich ?ion Gagern auf dent Wege zur deutschen Politik (1836-1848}, and Ideale und Irrtiinier des ersten deutschen Parloments (1848-1849) pols. 1-111 of Darstellungen utid QuelZen zur Gesclzichte der deutschen Einheitsberoe- gung im neunzehnten und manrigsten ]uhrhundert] (Heidelberg, 1957-1959).

Hock, Liberalcs Denken, 84.

55

‘The Historian a \ hc put i t , “the concept of the fatherland became my idol.”b An admirer of the enlightened despots, he still viewed with sympathy the struggles for freedom in Switzerland and America. A child of the late rococo period, a reader of Rousseau, he was an optimistic disciple of the power of nature and the gospel of progress. An aristocrat, he was equally critical of the levelling tendencies of democracy and the enforced uniformity of absolutism.

Favored by talent and fortune, Hans von Gagern had become privy counselor to the Prince of Nassau-Weilburg by the time he was twenty-four and emerged from the Napoleonic Wars a statesman of European stature. In 1814 Prince William of Orange accredited him to serve as his plenipotentiary to the Congress of l’ienna. Gagern, who embodied the spirit of that “third Germany” outside the orbits of Austria and Prussia, toiled hope- fully to invest the new German Confederation with power and prestige. As a delegate to the Bztndestug after 1815, Gagern vainly attempted to mold a federation of German states in which the smaller principalities would be able to maintain a balance of power between Austria and Prussia. He desired the creation of a constitution for Germany which would blend monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic principles into a viable frame of government. lo

These goals and aspirations were transmitted to his third son, Heinrich, who was born in 1799. Heinrich von Gagern was too young to play a role in the War of Liberation but old enough to recall with bitterness the French occupation of his Rhenish homeland and share in the growing consciousnes~ of German na t iona l identity which the wars with France had precipitated. l1 Upon Xapoleon’s return from Elba, young Gagern hurried to join in the renewed struggle against “this tyrant who has resolved to put Germany again in chains.”12 As a fifteen-

*Hans Christoph \on Gagern, Mein Antheil ail der Politik (5 vols.; Stuttgart and Tiihingen, 1823-1819). I , 14.

Arthur Steiger. Ham Christoph Ernst von Gagern. Ein deutscher Stuatsmann und Publicist (Ph.D. dissertation, Frankfurt University. 1924), 187: Helrnuth Rossler. Zwischen Rezzolutivn und Reaktion: Ein Lebensbild des Reichsfreiherrn Hans Christoph vvn Gagern, 1766-1852 (Gottingen, [1958]), 14-15, 23-27, 30-34, 305-306.

* Rossler, Zwischen Rmolution und Reaktion, So6 Wentzcke, Anfange und Aufstieg Heinrichs zvm Gagern (1799-1836), 23-24.

Heinrich \on Gagern, “Heinrichs von Gagern Beteilurigen an den deutschen EinheitshestrebnriRen.” quoted in Georg Kiintzel, “Aus dem Leben Heinrichs von Gagern.” Quellen und Darstellungen zur Ceschichte der Burschenschaft und der drufschen Einheitsbewegung, XV (1938), 275.

DHeinrich to Hans von Gagern, Mar. 19, 1815, Paul Wentzcke and Wolfgang Klouer, eds., Deutscher Liberalismus im V o m - r z : Briefe m d Reden. 1815-1848 (hereinafter cited as BR) (G6ttingen. [1959]), 57.

36

Heinrich von Gagern year-old lieutenant in the Nassau army, Heinrich fought under Wellington at Waterloo. la

Following a tour of occupation duty in Paris, the youthful veteran returned to Germany and enrolled as a law student at the lJniversity of Heidelberg in 1816. Like most of his comrades, “flushed with victory, . . . conscious of power, and accustomed to the use of the sword,”I4 he was immediately swept into the Burschenschuft, or German Student Union movement, which had burst forth in the heady climate of romantic nationalism then prevailing. Though often devoted to impractical or dangerously radical ends, the Rurschenschuf t provided the channel through which the ideas of 1789 entered German life and served as a prototype for the later political parties. While the organization embraced a number of diverse elements, i t was fundamentally the expression of the students’ desire to remodel their academic environment to conform to the patriotic and moral reforms which they sought for their country. l5

First at Heidelberg, then at Gottingen and Jena, Heinrich von Gagern became a leader in the movement and a spokesman for its aims. For his skeptical father, the youth defined the objectives of the Burschenschaft i,n the following terms:

We want Germany to be regarded as one country and the German people as one people. . . . JVe want a constitution for the people in harmony with the spirit of the age and in accord with their degree of enlightenment, rather than for each prince to give to his people that which suits his fancy and serves his private interests. l6

In these words Gagern acknowledged as his own the dual and inseparable aspirations for na t iona l unity and constitutional government - Einheit und Freiheit - which were to underlie the liberal program for the next thirty years.

To Heinrich’s father, who had retired in disgust from hi? seat in the Bundestug in 1818, these lofty purposes seemed innocent enough, if a bit impractical. But there were other tendencies within the Burschenschuft which caused him more serious concern. For one thing, Heinrich had come under the hfluence of Professor Jakob Friedrich Fries, an enthusiastic sponsor of the Burschen-

I* Klotzer, ed., “Ein unbekannter Waterloo-Brief Heinrich von Gagerns.”

“Heinrich von Gagern, Das Leben des Generals Friedrich von Gagern (3 vols.;

Ernst R. Huber, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789 (4 vols.; Stuttgart, ), I, 697-701; Leonard Krieger, The German Idea of Freedom: His toy

Nasrnuische Heirnatblatter, XLVI (1956). 15-26.

Leipzig and Heidelberg, 1856-57), I, 234-235.

1957- of n Political Tradition (Boston, [1957]), 261-264.

18 Heinrich to Hans von Gagern, Dune 17, 18181, BR, 60.

37

The Historian schaft and a favorite with the students. His doctrine of action according to conviction, regardless of the consequences, carried extremist overtones quite unacceptable to the father. 1’ A small but vocal faction of the student association had come under the control of the radical Karl Follen, who was beginning to make his democratic, republican, and revolutionary sympathies well known. At Jena, moreover, Heinrich might be led astray by his immensely popular professor, Heinrich Luden, an ardent champion of democracy and national unity. To the father, Luden was a reckless and shallow demagogue. Finally, the melodramatic emotionalism of the Wartburg Festival of 1817 had offended the old aristocrat’s sense of propriety.18 In Baron von Gagern’s critical eyes, the Burscheizschaft was, “if not an evil in itself, still a symptom of greater evils.”19 T o be sure, his son had adopted the moderate reformist approach to the problems of Germany in contrast to the revolutionary program which Follen and his circle advocated. But the lines of demarcation between radical and moderate were still indistinct within the Burschenschaft, and the old baron remained suspicious of the entire organization and fundamentally opposed to his son’s affiliation with it.

T h e father’s worst fears were confirmed early in 1819 when Karl Sand, Heinrich von Gagern’s quixotic comrade at Jena, murdered the dramatist, August von Kouebue, for political reasons. T h e official reaction to Sand’s deed culminated in the enactment of the repressive Carlsbad Decrees (1819) and the arrest of a number of Gagern’s closest friends in the Burschen- schaft. Though Heinrich escaped involvement in the investiga- tions which followed, his father thought it best to pack his son off to Switzerland until the hue and cry in Germany had abated somewhat. *O

The young man was thus afforded a pleasant and instructive

l‘ Heinrich von Gagern, Friedrich von Gagern, 1, 176, 236; Wentzcke, Geschichfr: der Deutschen Burschenschaft: Vor-und Frtihzeif p o l . \‘I of Quellen und Darstel- Iungm zur Gerchichte der Burschenschaft und der deutschen Einheitsbewegung] (Heidelberg, 1919). 307-308. On Fries see Huber, Deutsche I’erfa~sungsgeschich~e, 1. 713-717 and Liider Gabe, “Jakob Friedrich Fries,” Neue Derctsrhe Biographie (Berlin, 1953- ), V, 608-609.

ls Rossler, Zwischen Revolutiou und Reaktion, 189, 207, 213-214, 218; Kiintzel, “Aus dem Lehen Heinriclis von Gagern,” 287; Harry Gerber, “Heinrich von Gagern als Student.” A‘a.ssauische Annalen, LXVIII (1957). 194. On Luden see Hans Ehren- treich, “Heinrich Luden und sein Einfluss auf die Burschenschaft,” Quellen und firstellungen zur Geschichte de t Burschenschaft und der dcutschen Einheifsbe- wegung, IV (1913), 48-129.

=Hans to Heinrich von Gagern, Nov. 28, 1818, quoted in Gerber, “Heinrich von Gagern als Student,” 195.

sHans to Friedrich von Gagern, May 8, 1819, ibid., ZOO.

38

Heinrich von Gagern sojourn in Geneva at a most opportune time. Heinrich quickly made himself a part of the cosmopolitan social life of the city, and in this fashionable and rather expensive company the habits of the student soon gave way to the manners of the baron. Like other visitors to Geneva, Gagern viewed with interest the institu- tions of government in the city canton. He was highly impressed: “I believe that there are few countries in Europe which have so little to complain about as little Geneva.’’21

After this pleasant Genevan interlude, Heinrich returned to Germany in the spring of 1820. Through his father’s influence, he then obtained a position with the administration of Hesse- Darmstadt, that little grand duchy which lay athwart the great Rhine-Main crossroads. Despite his talent and ambition, however, young Gagern found his climb up the bureaucra t ic ladder impeded by his reputation as a Burschenschufter and his out- spoken contempt for the autocratic pretensions of the petty princes. He was bored by the stodgy court society at Darmstadt and discouraged by the “continual threshing of documents” which his duties involved. 22

Far more stimulating he found the bold speculations of his elder brother Friedrich. As a living symbol of his father’s efforts to forge a new bond between the Dutch and the Germans, Friedrich von Gagern (1794-1848), had entered the service of King William of the Nether lands in 1814. Ten years later, the promising young officer was assigned to liaison duties at Frankfurt. Heinrich now found frequent opportunities during the decade of the 1820s to visit his austerely brilliant brother and was pro- foundly influenced by his ideas. 23

Among the more portentous of these notions was Friedrich’s conviction that Prussia must lead in the unification of Germany. The elder brother was among the first to advance systematically the “kleindeutsch” solution to German unification and is thus to be counted among the “pioneers of the conception of the federal state in Germany.”24 Fiercely dedicated to the goal of national unity, Friedrich regarded the German Confederation as “the shame of Germany and the laughingstock of Europe” -a mere travesty of a national bond. 2s The confederation of thirty-nine

=Heinrich to Hans von Gagern, Nov. 14, 1819, Gagern Archiv Neuenbiirg

=Heinrich to Hans von Gagern, Dec. 31, 1826. ibid. =Heinrich von Gagern, Friedrich von Gagern, I, 94-98, 268, 318, 336-337.

(Hereinafter cited as GAN). Bundesarchiv. Abteilung Frankfurt a/M.

Friedrich Meinecke, Weltbiirgertum und Nationalstaat: Studien zur Genesis

Friedrich von Gagern, “Der gegenwartige Zustand,” quoted in Heinrich von des deutschen Nationalstaates (5th ed.; Munich and Berlin, 1919), 349.

Gagern, Friedrich von Gagern, I, 271.

39

The Historian sovereign states must be replaced by a truly federal state under a constitutional monarch. For his German nation of the future, Friedrich proposed a strong legislative branch composed of a lower house elected by the people and a chamber of peers repre- senting the individual princes. 28 He was convinced that Austria, with her polyglot population and government wedded to abso- lutist principles, could never lead in the achievement of nation- hood. Prussia , with its more homogenous popu la t ion and progressive government, must assume this task. T o be sure, the great undertaking would require sacrifices on the part of the Hohenzollern kingdom. In order to succeed, it must “allow the name of Prussia to be submerged into that of Germany”27 and create for itself a representative constitution as well. With this accomplished, the foundation for an all-German parliament and a united federal state would be laid.

These ideas made a tremendous impression on the thinking of Heinrich von Gagern. Years later he would find himself quoting passages from Friedrich’s essays to support his own political propam. For the first time, Heinrich began to regard Prussia as a vigorous source of power which, guided and controlled, might rebuild Germany into a new national structure. Hence- forth he would welcome any progressive impulse or sign of liberalization from within the Hohenzollern regime as an indica- tion of its readiness to assume that task. Later, as president of the Frankfurt National Assembly of 1848, Gagern would support a program almost identical to that outlined in his brother’s political essays. 28

During the “quiet decade” of the 182Os, however, these bold conceptions seemed little more than dreams as Gagern plodded on in the dull administrative routine. Slowly he rose in rank to membership in a provincial council, but by 1827 had become convinced that the road to promotion was closed to one of his political sympathies. “I have opinions which are not liked here,” Heinrich admitted to his father, but “it would be impossible for me hastily to modify them.”28 T o be sure, Hesse-Darmstadt had been granted a constitution in 1820. There existed a bi- cameral Lnndtag to assist the Grand Duke in legislation. But the principle of monarchical supremacy remained untouched, and a staunchly conservative ministry resisted all efforts to develop a genuine parliamentary regime. Baron Karl du Bos du Thil,

a Friedrich von Gagern, “Vom Bundesstaat,” ibid., 371-387. nFriedrich von Gagern, T o n der Nothwendigkeit und den Mitteln, die

-ZIbid., 337, 388, 580. mHeinrich to Hans von Gagern, Feb. 15. 1828, BR, 84-85.

politische Einheit Deutschlands hemstellen,” ibid., 284.

50

Heinrich von Gagern the able minister president of the grand duchy, was a dedicated exponent of Metternich’s German policy. In such a situation young Gagern’s ambitions seemed vain indeed. “I have been ostracized to a certain extent from so-called society,” he fumed; “I will be bored so much the less.”3’J

Gagern’s ostracism was short-lived, however, for in 1828 his marriage to a young Darmstadt beauty not only gave him a new respectability but smoothed the way for his acceptance into the most exclusive social circles of the Hessian capital. His bride had important connections at court, and Heinrich‘s long-awaited promotion to provincial counselor was soon forthcoming. 31 He would most probably have continued this happily prosaic rise had outside forces not intervened to shape the course of his career.

Within two and one-half years after her marriage, Gagern’s wife died, leaving the young official distraught and shaken. With forced zeal he buried himself in a strenuous study of the events of the day, seeking consolation in politics.32 There was much to attract his attention, for the July Revolution of 1830 in France had sent a series of reverberating shocks across Europe and unleashed new storms in the political life of the German states. As the result of popular outbreaks, the Duke of Brunswick was deposed, and the King of Saxony was forced to relinquish his sovereignty to a regency. Hesse-Cassel was granted a liberal constitution, and in Baden and Wurttemberg the conflict between elective assembly and monarchical sovereignty intensified. For the first time a popular political consciousness had been aroused which gave impetus to the growth of the liberal and democratic movements in Germany. As a Scottish visitor observed,

The moral and political state of Germany loudly proclaims the most important coming events. . . . It is evident that the mental and political strife which now rages in the south- western part of this country . . . must ere long come to a crisis.33

The upsurge of public feeling reached its height in May 1832, when approximately 25,000 people met near Hambach Castle in the Bavarian Palatinate to demonstrate their support for a free and united German nation.

This first political mass meeting in German history provoked an immedia te reaction by the conservative leadership of the German Confederation. Prompted by Metternich, the Bundestug

aZbid., 85. nHeinrich to Hans von Gagern, May 12, Aug. 26, Oct. 28, and Dec. 30, 1828,

=Karl Kekule to Heinrich von Gagern, Oct. 1, 1838, ibid. and Feb. 24, 1829, GAN.

John Strang, Germany in M D C C C X X X l (New York, 1836), 356-357.

41

The Historian adopted in 1832 the famous “six articles” which curtailed the powers and prerogatives of the state assemblies, inasmuch as they were considered the seedbeds of revolutionary ferment. These decrees were met by a storm of indignation by the politically conscious elements of south Germany. Far from discrediting the state diets, the six articles encouraged liberal and democratic forces to look to them with increasing hope as the agencies through which their aspirations might be realized. As a Wiirttemberg liberal put it, “It is the diets which have the mission of cham- pioning justice against force, law against despotism, [and] freedom against oppre~s ion .”~~ It was upon this stage that Heinrich von Gagern now began his political career.

He was elected to the Hessian Land tag in the autumn of 1532. This bicameral diet had an upper house or First Chamber composed of representatives of the nobility, the churches, and the universities. The Second Chamber, to which Gagern was elected, consisted of fifty representatives of towns and country districts, most of whom were chosen by a cumbersome three-stage electoral process. According to the Hessian Constitution of 1820, the crown retained the authority to initiate legislation and might convene or prorogue the chambers at will. Nevertheless, all revenue measures and other legislation had to have the approval of the Land tag , which also enjoyed the sole right to petition the crown. 35

Heinrich von Gagern, bearing that “certain stamp of chivalry” which caused him to stand out among his colleagues, quickly became the recognized leader of the opposition majority in the Second Chamber. He and his associates demanded a reform of the Constitution and launched a vigorous attack against official censorship, arbitrary arrest, and especially the six articles of the German Confederation. 36 According to Gagern, the Confedern- tion had brought none of the benefits of national life; the German people had felt only its repressive character. As long as the Confederation did not afford true unity, the several states should vigilantly guard their sovereignty against such interference as that represented by the six articles.37 “The seeds of revolution will lie in any people whose government stands in contradiction

I‘ Paul Pfizer, Gedankcn irber dnr Tiel und die Aufgabe des deutschen Liberalis-

Huber, Deufsche Verfarrungsgeschichte, I , 342-345; W. van Calker, Hessische

Carl von Rotteck and Carl Welcker, eds., Staats-Lexikon odcr Encyklopddie

iuus (Tubingen. 1852). 28.

I’erfassungsgesetze mit Einiiihrung und Erliiuterungen (Giessen, 1906). 118-153.

der Staotswkscnschaften (15 vols.: Altona, [1835-1849], VI, 218, VlI, 722-755. R R , 110-112.

42

Heinrich von Gagern to all national sentiments, to all national hopes and aspirations,” he warned. a8

But d u Bos du Thil, minister president of Hesse-Darmstadt, stubbornly resisted all efforts by the liberal majority to force their program on the government. With considerable accuracy, he charged that “Herr von Gagern and his confederates fancied now the French, now the English Constitution; they invoked now one, now the other. We replied that we recognized only the Hessian Constitution.” 31) Recrimination and hostility grew sharper daily as the ministry refused to consider the reforms demanded in the Second Chamber. Du Thil was determined not to yield one iota of grand ducal sovereignty to the Lundtag .

As the struggle was reaching its height, events outside the Chamber fortified the minister’s resolve and diminished the chances for a liberal victory. On the night of April 3, 1833, a band of about fifty insurgents, most of whom were students, attempted an ill-conceived coup d’ttat against the headquarters of the German Confederation in Frankfurt. Confederation troops quickly overpowered the conspirators, however, and a general rising failed to materialize. This rash act merely strengthened the determination of the conservative powers and brought suspicion upon the entire liberal movement. When Gagern attempted to coerce the government by refusing to vote supplies, du Thil dissolved the L a n d t a g in November 1833.*O

Thus ended the first round of the parliamentary struggle in Hesse-Darmstadt. But Gagern vowed to “finish the fight . . . in every arena which is open to me.”41 Resigning from government service, he successfully stood for reelection in 1834 and led a strong majority in the Sixth Hessian Lund tag . As spokesman for the opposition party, he found ample opportunity to express his political principles.

To understand the character of his aims, it must first be recognized that the often repeated watchwords of “unity and freedom” represented the two indispensable attributes of the nation-state as Gagern conceived it. T o him, as to other liberals of the period, “freedom” primarily signified the right and responsibility of the individual to participate in the decisions of the state. Only through the exercise of the rights of citizenship

=Ibid., 114. 3 Karl von du Boos du Thil, Denkwiirdigkeiten aus dein Dienstleben des

Hessen-Darmstadtischen Staatsministers Freiherrn du Thil (1803-1848), ed. by Heinrich Ulmann (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1921), 409.

a Wiener Zeitung, Nov. 11-13, 1833; Rotteck and Welcker, Staats-Lexikon,

UHeinrich to Hans von Gagern, Feb. 18, 1834, BR, 133. VII, 725-729.

43

The Historian - voting, jury duty, military service, etc. - within the body politic could the individual achieve true freedom. 42 Between this funda- mental political liberty and individual freedom the young deputy drew a distinction. The right of the citizen to criticize his govern- ment, a free press, and an independent judiciary he listed as among the most important precepts of individual liberty. This freedom from the state would flow naturally from that freedom through the state which is the esence of political liberty.43

-4s an article of faith, Gagern clung to the long-held notion that Freiheit und Einheit were inseparable; that political liberty would inevitably follow on the heels of German unification. “Freedom is certain to make way for itself if only unity is present,” he wrote. 4 4 Conversely, Gagern believed that the unified nation could emerge and maintain itself only when the people were able to express their demands for nationhood through representative ins ti tu tions.

Thus, Gagern regarded the establishment of national unity as the expression of the collective will of the people. But having earlier witnessed the excesses of the Paris mob, 45 he was unwilling to grant to the people an absolute sovereignty. The baron remained a bit suspicious of democracy. “The national viewpoint won me over; I put up with the democratic one,” he explained to his brother. “Thus I drew closer to the democratic party without losing my aristocratic nature.” 4fi The force of public opinion should be balanced by a strong executive authority, Gagern argued. A constitutional monarchy in which sovereignty is divided between king and parliament was best suited to the simultaneous preservation of the national bond and individual freedom, and England had provided the model. For. as Gagern lectured the Chamber,

the genius of the centurv has designated the English Constitu- tion as a system whose imitation is possible and desirable for the occidental peoples, and from whose principles the German states . . . cannot depart without risk.47 Guided by these political precepts, Gagern was the spokesman

“ [ b i d . , 153, 160, 208.

“Heinrich to Hans von Gagern, Jul! 13, 1832, ibad., 100. aGagern had visited Park in April 1832 during the riots of the chifluniers.

His impressions of the Paris rabble, “the most brutal, ignorant [and] ferocious mob to be found in the world,” are recorded in a letter to his father of Apr. 5, 1832, G A N .

ZOid., 124.

*Heinrich to Friedrich von Gagern, hlay 13, 1839, BR, 221. 4T Quoted in Karl Buchner, Heinrich von Gagern. Ein ofentlicher Charakter

(Stuttgart and Tubingen, 1848), 47.

44

Heinrich von Gagern for the opposition faction of the Sixth Landtug from May to October 1834. The session opened with the Second Chamber defying the government’s request for funds: it was climaxed by furious debate over the police powers of the state. In order to stamp out revolutionary ag i ta t ion , du Thil had resorted to arbitrary arrest and interference with thc normal operations of the Hessian court system. Gagern’s impetuous and bitter condem- nation of these unconstitutional measures merely served du Thil as a pretext for dissolving the refractory Landtag after a life of less than six months.

In the elections which followed, the chief minister used every means at his command to insure that the majority in the new diet would be submissive to the needs and desires of the ministry. Thus, when Gagern entered the Seventh Landtag in May 1835, he found himself the discredi ted leader of an insignificant minority, unable to influence the course of proceedings one way or another. Having proved a compliant tool of the governmenr, the Seventh Landtag concluded its sessions in June 1836. Long before, Gagern had decided that further efforts to liberalize the Hessian system were futile in the hostile climate which then prevailed. “I am inexpressibly sick of it here,” he wrote. “One gets tired of wasting one‘s labor and preaching to servile block- h e a d ~ . ’ ’ ~ ~

The immediate future held little hope for a revival of his fortunes. After the ominous tremors of the early thirties, Germany had gradually subsided into its former quiescent state, and a dull lassitude seemed to overwhelm the political energies of the people. Restless, disillusioned, and humiliated by the failure of his ambi- tious plans, Gagern turned his back on politics and public life and retired to the country. In 1836 the young baron took a lease on the family estate at Monsheirn in Rhenish Hesse and there among his vineyards and livestock led the very pleasant existence of a country squire.

Though Gagern remained out of public life for a decade, his political role was no less important than it had been earlier. During this period he played a significant part in the genesis of the national liberal party. Between 1837 and 1847 there emerged the elements of what has been called the “five-party system” of Germany: conservative, Catholic, national liberal, radical demo- cratic, and socialist. The national liberal movement evolved

@ Du Thil, Denkwiirdigheiten, 427-435, 617; Rotteck and Welcker, Staats- Lexikon, VI, 216, VII, 732-734; Karl Vietor. G e o g Biichner ak Politikcr (Bern and Leipzig, 1939), 80-96.

“Heinrich to Max von Gagern. uuly. 18351, BR, 151. Huber. Deutsche Vajaswngsgeschuhte, 11. 318.

45

T h e Historian from regional conferences of like-minded men, through nation- wide collaboration, to the creation of a common program under the impact of the Revolution of 1848. Gagern at Monsheim served as a link between the Rhenish businessmen, the north German academicians, and the parliamentary reformers of south- western Germany who formed the nucleus of the national liberal party.

From the very outset of his parliamentary career, Gagern had established lasting contacts with the foremost opposition leaders of the south. In the fall oE 1832, while a candidate to the Hessian Landtag, he had met Adam \.on Itzstein, the most prominent German parliamentarian of the period prior to 1848. Itzstein’s estate at Hallgarten in the Rheingau became a regular meeting place for progressives of all shades of opinion as he sought to forge a united opposition to the conservative policies of the Confederation.61 At the same time, Gagern came to know Karl von Rotteck and Karl Welcker, the two most famous of the Badenese liberals, whose ,Staats-Lexikon became for Germaii liberalism what Diderot’s Eiicycloptdie had been for the French Enlightenment. 52 Later, through Itzstein’s eager efforts, Gagern was introduced to men of a more radical stamp: Robert Blum, the Saxon, and Friedrich Hecker, the Badenese republican. 58

In 1833, Gagern had met with a larger group of southwestern liberals at Langenbrucken, Uaden, to discuss the impending extension of the Prussian Zollz i~rein into south Germany. On this occasion Gagern made the acquaintance of the Wurttemberg opposition leaders, including Paul Pfizer, the first of the liberal leaders to call publicly for Prussian leadership in the unification of Germany. While Gagern was a pronounced advocate of the Zollverein as a step toward national unity, most of his colleagues regarded it as an unwelcome extension of Prussian hegemony. i5‘

This extensive political in te rcourse initiated during his Laridlag activity was by 110 means terniinated by retirement to the country. The Monsheim estate, situated on the very border of the Bavarian Palatinate, encouraged frequent contact between

&‘Hans to Friedrich von Gagern, So\. 1, 1832, Heinrich von Gagern, Friedrich >*on Gagern, 11, 166; Klotzer, “Johann Adam von Itzstein,” Nassauische Anmlcn, LXVII (1956). 262-264; Aflgetneine detrtsche Biographie, WV, 649-650.

”Hans to Friedrich von Gagern, Sept. 26. 1832, BR, 101-102. ”Friedrich Ilecker to Heinrich \ on Gagern, Feb. I , 1847, and Robert Blual

: r i Heiniich von Gagern. Mar. 12, I M 7 , HR, 351, 382-383. Ibid., 115-116; Karl Wild. Karl Tlieodor Welrkrr, ein Yorhatrrpfer d w alteren

Li6eralist~1u.s (Heidelberg, 1‘313). 212, n. 2; \\-illiam 0. Henderson, The Zollverein (Cambridge, 1939), 92-93, 104-109. Yfizer’s Briefuwhsel tweier Dculschen (Stuttgart nnd Tubingen, 1831). urged essentially the same “kleindeutsch” solution to the Grvrnan problem that Friedrich von Gagern had suggested privately in 1823.

46

Heinrich von Gagern Gagern and Bavarian politicians sympathetic to the liberal cause. Moreover, a second marriage in 1839 established familial connec- tions with other prominent proponents of liberal reforms in Bavaria, over whom Gagern was to exercise considerable influence. 56

In the meantime, events had attracted the baron’s attention to the north. His interest was first drawn into the intricate Schleswig-Holstein problem by the appeals of his old Burschen- schaft comrade and somewhat erratic champion of German inter- ests in Schleswig-Holstein, Uwe Jens Lornsen. Largeiy through Lornsen’s influence, Gagern became an active proponent of the German national cause in the two duchies and established contact with Georg Beseler, Franz Hegewisch and Georg Balemann, leading north German liberals. 66

From these men Gagern in turn acquired a personal interest in the outcome of the “Gottingen Seven” affair. j i When the new King of Hanover revoked the Hanoverian Constitution in 1837, seven professors at Gottingen protested his action and declared themselves still bound by oath to the Constitution. For this act of defiance they were discharged from their professorships. While Heinrich von Gagern contributed to the support of the discharged professors, his father spoke out forcefully against the unconsti- tutional pretensions of the Hanoverian monarch which had pre- cipitated the whole affair.5s This vindication of the “Gottingen Seven” facilitated a future collaboration between Gagern and the two leaders of the Gottingen circle, Friedrich Dahlmann and Georg Gottfried Gervinus.

While these links with the most influential molders of liberal opinion grew and matured, Gagern continued to look toward his family for advice and inspiration. By 1844, his eldest brother Friedrich was a major general in the Dutch army and had embarked upon a three-year inspection tour of the East Indies which would take him around the world. Yet he never lost sight of German affairs, and his letters centered on Heinrich’s future

“Heinrich to Hans von Gagern, Jan. 23, 1837, Heinrich \on Gagern to Franz Buhl, Jan, 25, 1841, and Heinrich von Gagern to Serafine Jordan, Nov. 28. 184.5.

Alexander Scharff, “UHe Jens Lornsens ‘Vermachtnis.’ Studien zu Lornsen und seinem Freundeskreis,” Zeitschrift der Gesrllschuft fur schleswigholrlei~zis~h~ Geschichte, LXXIV-LXXV (1951), 320-362.

&‘Friedrich Dahlmann, the leader of the Giittingen protesters, was the brother- in-law of Hegewixh. George Beseler, a disciple of Dahlmaiin, provided a widell- circulated apology for the “Gattingen Seven,” Zur Beurteilung der Sieben Giittittger Professoren und ihrer Sache (Rostock, 1838).

“Heinrich to Friedrich von Gagern, May IS, 1839, and Heinrich to Hans \on Gagern, Jan. 8, 1841, BR, 223, 2344-235.

BR, 171, 238-239, 311-312.

47

The Historian as ;1 parlianieritary leader. By 1838, however, Max von Gagern jlSlO-l%39), the youngest brother, had become for Heinrich “the pole around which my intellectual activity revolves.” 68 After four years of teaching at Bonn, Max had entered the diplomatic service of Nassau in 1840 and henceforth reported to the somewhat isolated proprietor of Monsheim his accounts and impressions of events in the great world outside. In Max, Heinrich found not only a devoted and sympathetic confidant, but a ready critic as well. Both Friedrich and Max were united in their encourage- ment for Heinrich to begin a new political career.60

Keentry into active politics was signalized in November 1845, when Heinrich was elected president of the Agricultural Society of Rhenish Hesse. This position gave him considerable influence as well as a public forum throughout his predominantly agrarian province. Moving easily and informally among the Rhenish Hessians, Gagern turned the Agricultural Society into an arm of liberal agitation against the government.61 By the end of 1546, as Heinrich put it, “My influence has certainly increased very much, but I don’t know whether it’s because I’m president or whether I’m president because my influence has increased - probably both.”6Z

Under these circumstances, no one was very surprised when in January 1847 a by-election at Worms sent Gagern into the Landtag again. By this time the worsening economic crisis and the impending convocation of the Prussian United Landtag had generated an atmosphere of uneasy expectancy throughout Ger- many. In many quarters Gagern’s election was viewed not only as a revival of Hessian parliamentary life but as a harbinger of dramatic events to come.

T o be sure, Gagern led but a small minority in the Tenth Landtag, and his energies were consumed in a vain effort to preserve the liberal juridical institutions which his province had inherited from its domination by France. Nevertheless, “charged like a bomb with the spirit of opposition,”e3 he inveighed against governmental efforts to restrict freedom O E the press, trial by jury, and freedom of petition. By the time the Tenth Landtag was dissolved in June 1847, Gagern had published a lengthy vindi-

-Heinrich to Max von Gagern, Mar. 15, 1838, ibid., 193. ea Ludwig von Pastor, Leben des Freiherrn M a x von Gagern (1810-1889),

(Keinpten and Munich, 1912), 100. 109: Mas to Friedrich von Gagern, Nov. 18, 1846, B R , 337: hlax to Heinrich von Gagern, June 14, 1841, G A N .

aLblR, 392; E. T h . Jakel, Geschichte der neuesten Zeit in Biographieen und Charakterisliken (Leipzig, 1848), 49.

“Heinrich von Gagern to Reinhard Eigenbrodt, Nov. 14, 1846, RR, 335. “Hans to Friedrich von Gagern, Feb. 20. 1847. ibid., 380.

4H

Heinrich von Gagern cation of his position,s4 had provoked a challenge to duel by his attacks on the conservative direction of the state,65 and had been accorded a position of leadership within the liberal movement throughout the entire nation.

As a nationally recognized champion of reform, Gagern parti- cipated in the founding of the Heidelberg Deutsche Zeitung, an event which marks the “birth of German national liberalism.” 66

Appearing from July 1847 until the end of 1850, this paper set forth the first comprehensive program of moderate liberalism and served as a bridge uniting leaders from Prussia and south Germany in a common endeavor. Gagern contributed articles to the journal, helped shape its editorial policy, and served on its board of directors. Through the Dezitsche Zeitung he estab- lished a warm friendship with Georg Gottfried Gervinus, professor of history and editor of the paper, and worked with Karl Mathy and Friedrich Bassermann, leaders of a new genera t ion of liberalism in Baden. 67

This authoritative organ of liberal opinion was all the more necessary since the fundamental division between the moderate and radical factions of the reform party was becoming increasingly apparent in the autumn of 1847. While Gagern and his moderate colleagues of the Deutsche Zeitung continued to work toward a monarchical federation of the German states under a liberal constitution, radicals like Gustav von Struve and Friedrich Hecker were calling for a unitary republic for Germany. To these determined democrats the moderate leaders were mere “half- blooded, lukewarm men of the ‘if’ and the ‘but.”IG8 On September 12, 1847, Hecker and Struve led in the formulation of a radical program at Offenburg, Baden, which called for the formation of a political and social democracy.

T o counter this radical platform, eighteen prominent members of the moderate faction met at Heppenheim, Hesse, in October. Here Heinrich von Gagern and his colleagues from the southwest were joined by the most prominent of the Prussian liberals, David Hansemann. While the radicals at Offenburg had demanded

Heinrich von Gagern, Rechtliche Erorterung iiber den Inhalt und Bestand der der Provinz Rheinhessen landeshewlich verliehenen Garantie ihrer Rechts- Perfassung bei Verwirklichung des Art. 103 der Staats-Verfassung (Worms, 1847).

(L6 Robert Blum, Die Fortschrittsnliinner der Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1847), 57-61. Bb Huber, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, 11, 448.

Heinrich to Hans von Gagern, Jan. 11, 1847, BR, 355-358; Ludwig Mathy, ed., Aus dem Nachlass won Karl Mathy: Briefe aus den Jahren 1846-1848 (Leipzig, 1898), 4-5, 24-40.

Blum, Die Fortschrittsnanner, 61. *# Huber, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, 11, 449-450.

49

The Historian social and economic reform, the conference at Heppenheim con- centrated upon devising a formula for unification. The partici- pants discussed two possible approaches toward this goal: one, by converting the Confederation into a representative national government; the other, by building a political structure on the basis of the Zollverein. For the present, the group agreed to keep both routes open and confer periodically. 70 Because it called for the creation of a national legislative body, the Heppenheim meeting came to be regarded as “the cradle of the German Parliament.” 71

Shortly prior to the Heppenheim conference Gagern had been reelected to the Lalidtag and led a strong opposition majority in the Second Chamber when it convened in December 1847. In this sympathetic forum he condemned the stubborn conserva- tism of the government and contrasted its policy with that of his own:

I support the doctrine of bee election against the policy of electoral restriction, the doctrine of a free press against a servile press system. [l favor] the expansion of popular liberties rather than their suppression. . . . In this sense I am in opposition . . . but in complete accord with my duty to be true to my oath and to do what the country expects of me.7’

Thus he stood on the threshold of the year of revolution, coii- fident of his influence and prepared to offer an alternate program of government for his state.

Though events would propel Gagern into a pos i t ion of national leadership within the space of five months, there is no reason to believe that iil January 1848 his ambitions reached much beyond the narrow boundaries of Hesse. For he was quite conscious of his limitations, describing himself as having “neither brilliant intellect, nor lively imagination, nor sense of logical organization, nor significant learning.” i3 Making no pretensions at originality of thought, he admitted that he had merely “lent words and given expression to that which the best men of the nation have striven for.” 74

But Gagern’s handsome and imposing demeanor, his winning personality and contagious enthusiasm masked these deficiencies.

’OFelis Salomon, ed., Die deutschen Parteiprograrnrne (3rd ed., 3 vols.; Leipzig m d Bcriin, 1924-26), 1, 2-4; Friedrich D. Bassemann, Denkzuzirdigkeiten: 1811-1855 (Frankfurt, 1926), 12- 16; Alexander Bergengriin, Dnuid Hansemann (Berlin, 1901). 398-399; Gustav Freytag, Karl M o t h ) (Leipzig, 1850), 237-239.

‘l Bassemann, DenkwJrdigkeiten, 16. “ U R , 412. :*Heinrich to Friedrich \ o n Gageni, hIay 13, 1839, ibid., 222. ’‘ Hock, Liberales Denken, 84.

50

Heirrich von Gagern His selfless patriotism and energetic effort won the confidence of his liberal colleagues, while his willingness to compromise conflict- ing aims gave him a position of ascendancy in the movement. Moreover, his political principles incorporated the very essence of the liberal program. He was convinced that the unwieldy Confederation could be transformed into a strong federal state through peaceful parliamentary means. Leadership by a liberal- ized Prussia, he felt, offered the most practical approach to this enc1.T6 Adhering firmly to the classical principles of mixed gov- ernment, he favored “a German constitution after the British model, as far as the prerogatives of the crown and the liberties of the people are concerned.”76 In both character and doctrine, Gagern epitomized the moderate liberal persuasion on the eve of 1848.

” B R , 384-387. Heinrich von Gagern to Georg Beseler, Nov. 26, 1837, ibid., 183.

51